19960757 Ver 1_Complete File_19960812

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt,Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes,Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Directo r
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
LT.M;
A&14
ID EHNFi
August 21, 1996
Hender4on County
DWQ Project # 960757
State Project No. 8.1951201
TIP#.B-2574
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.08 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
replacing bridge No. 120 on US 176 over Green River, as you described in your application dated 7 August
1996. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3027. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 6 when it is
issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In addition, you
should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you mayask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
Attachment
aw Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Feld Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Y
HIH?owar . P.E.
960757.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycledtl 0% post consumer paper
** t

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TI?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
August 7, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers c j
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
960757
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
AU6 1 '? 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
BRANCH
SUBJECT: Henderson County - Replacement of Bridge No. 120 on US 176 over
Green River; T.I.P. No. B-2574; State Project No. 8.1951201
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace the existing
structure on new alignment, along with associated approach improvements. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge throughout construction. This project is being processed
as a Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). We expect to proceed
with this project under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A
(B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The provisions
of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the
construction of this project.
The proposed work may involve up to 0.08 acre of fill in jurisdictional wetlands.
The Green River is designated as a Wild Public Mountain Trout Water by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission. Construction shall be accomplished so that wet concrete
does not contact stream water. In order to protect trout eggs and fry, in-stream work will
not be undertaken between October 16 and April 14.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site test as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in he ream. It is anticipated that this.
work may be authorized under Nationwide PermiylNo. 6 r Survey Activities.
e
fA t
In accordance with current procedures for projects located in the designated trout
counties, the concurrence of WRC must be obtained prior to construction. By copy of
this letter, we hereby request that WRC review the proposed project and provide any
comments they find necessary. A copy of the CE document is included for the WRC
review. Please note the special construction conditions included in the Summary of
Environmental Commitments.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at
[phone], Extension 306.
Sincerely,
1. ranklin Vick, P. E., Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. David Yow, WRC, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. F. D. Martin, P. E., Division 14 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, Planning & Environmental

Henderson County
Bridge No. 120 on US 176
Over Green River
Federal Project BRSTP-176(1)
State Project 8.1951201
TIP # B-2574
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
& PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f)
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
626-96
Date -.?,.-H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
7 ? Ain G -
ate Nich Graf, P. E.
,Pat Division Administrator, FHWA
.a
Henderson County
Bridge No. 120 on US 176
Over Green River
Federal Project BRSTP-176(1)
State Project 8.1951201
TIP # B-2574
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
& PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f)
June, 1996
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
J.Z?j.9k A , W `
Date Am L. 'Williams
Project Planning Engineer
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
- Z'-' J- 't' V. A " ? " ?
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SEAL •
's 6916
?•
G .•
Henderson County
Bridge No. 120 on US 176
Over Green River
Federal Project BRSTP-176(1)
State Project 8.1951201
TIP # B-2574
Bridge No. 120 is located in Henderson County on US 176 crossing over Green
River. It is programmed in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as
a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement
Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial
environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Bridge No. 120 will be replaced with a new bridge on a new alignment
approximately 15 meters (50 feet) to the north of the existing structure. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction.
The new bridge will be approximately 183 meters (600 feet) in length and
9.0 meters (30 feet) wide including two 3.3-meter (11-foot) travel lanes. Because US 176
is designated as a North Carolina Bicycling Highway the offsets will be 1.2 meters (4
feet) wide and the railing 1372 millimeters (54 inches) high bicycle safe rail.
Approach work will extend approximately 91 meters (300 feet) from the west end
of the bridge and 122 meters (400 feet) from the west end of the bridge. It includes two
3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved shoulders for bicycles. To the
outside of the paved shoulders will be an additional 2.1-meter (7-foot) grassed shoulder
with guardrail. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed will be
approximately 65 km/h (40 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 3,590,000 including $ 3,500,000 in
construction costs and $90,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
1997-2003 TIP is $ 3,940,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." An Army Corps of engineers
General Regional Permit # 31 will likely be applicable to this project.
Prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Regional General Permit # 31 a
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification must be obtained.
Bridge No. 120 is a spandrel arch bridge eligble for the National Register of Historic
Places. As such, the bridge will be recorded properly prior to demolition. Recording includes
producing a report that includes photos, blueprints and a written history of the bridge. (see
concurrence form, MOA, and letter from Advisory Council in attachments).
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the
100-year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will
be forwarded to TVA for approval under Section 26a.
An underground watermain lies north of the bridge. The exact location should be
determined during the surveys required for design work.
Extreme caution must be taken with regard to any blasting or demolition work in the area
due to the wooden penstock associated with the nearby hydroelectric facilities. The bridge will be
designed so as to avoid the penstock with the footings and construction. Consideration will be
given to using footings which do not require blasting. The Design Branch will coordinate with
Duke Power Company with regard to safety precautions required to protect the wooden penstock.
Duke Power Company, responsible for the operation of the Tuxedo Hydroelectric Plant,
has determined that a Federal Energy Regulations Commission (FERC) permit is not required.
While a permit is not required, NCDOT will comply with Duke Power's request that the Structure
Design Unit will consult with Duke Power regarding the treatment of the bridge as it relates to
their wooden penstock.
The Green River is a designated Public Mountain Trout Water. Therefore, the
following environmental commitments will be implemented:
• In-water construction will not be allowed between October 16 and April 14 to avoid
spawning periods for trout.
• Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples
for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT anticipates a design exception will be required due the horizontal
curvature limiting design speed to below the posted speed limit.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 176 is classified as a Rural Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It carries 1700 vehicles per day. The speed limit along this stretch
of road is 90 km/h (55 mph). The road primarily serves traffic traveling between Saluda
and Hendersonville. The study area is predominantly agricultural, with scattered
residential developments.
The existing bridge was completed in 1927. It is 177 meters ( 580 feet) long.
There are approximately 40 meters (130 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge
deck and streambed. The deck has 6.0 meters (20 feet) of bridge roadway width
providing for two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 48.8 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is not posted.
The horizontal alignment is poor on both ends of the bridge with curvature ending
on the bridge (see Figure 2). Vertical alignment is relatively flat. The pavement width
on the approaches to the bridge is 6.6 meters (22 feet). Shoulders on both ends of the
bridge are approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide. The design speed for the existing
alignment is 50 km/h (30 mph).
Traffic volume is 1700 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 3700 VPD for the
year 2020.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that one accident has been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the project. It occurred when a vehicle
charged with exceeding a safe speed ran off the curve and into the bridge rail on the west
end of the bridge under icy conditions.
There are four daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge. The Henderson
County Schools Transportation Director indicated that maintaining traffic onsite during
construction would be critical for school busses.
There is a seven foot diameter penstock carrying water from the dam at Lake
Summit under the bridge down to a hydroelectric plant approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5
miles) downstream. An underground water main carrying water to Hendersonville lies
north of the bridge. A fiber optic cable lies along the north side of the road and passes
under the road just to the east end of the bridge where it appears to terminate. There is no
sign of the fiber optic cable on the west end of the bridge. There are several aerial power
lines crossing parallel to and to the south of the existing bridge.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATI
There is no feasible offsite detour and therefore maintenance of traffic onsite is
required. A detour bridge was considered to be economically infeasible. Provision of a
replacement bridge south of the existing bridge would result in a less desirable alignment
and has no apparent advantages. Therefore, this document considers only one build
alternative.
Bridge No. 120 will be replaced on new alignment approximately 15 meters (50
feet) north of the existing alignment. The alignment shown results from an effort to
improve the existing alignment and miss the culvert shown in Figure 2. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The design speed will be
approximately 65 km/h (40 mph).
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
,3
VI. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)
COMPONENT COST
New Bridge Structure $1,600,000
Bridge Removal 93,000
Roadway & Approaches 836,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 500,000
Engineering & Contingencies 471,000
Total Construction $3,500,000
Right of Way (high ROW 90,000
costs due to utilities impacts)
Total Cost $3,590,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 120 will be replaced with a new bridge on a new alignment
approximately 15 meters (50 feet) to the north of the existing structure. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction.
The new bridge will be approximately 183 meters (600 feet) in length and
9.0 meters (30 feet) wide including two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes. Because US 176 is
designated as a North Carolina Bicycling Highway, the offsets will be 1.2 meters (4 feet)
wide and the railing 1372 millimeters (54 inches) high bicycle safe rail.
Approach work will extend approximately 91 meters (300 feet) from the west end
of the bridge and 122 meters (400 feet) from the west end of the bridge. It includes two
3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved shoulders for bicycles. To the
outside of the paved shoulders will be an additional 2.1-meter (7-foot) grassed shoulder
with guardrail. The shoulder will taper to 2.4 meters (8 feet) where guardrail is not
required. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed will be approximately 65
km/h (40 mph).
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
4
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are anticipated to be moderate due to the probability of moving
some of the utilities identified earlier in this document.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Henderson County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) of 1981, the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the project being
considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that the
project will not impact prime or important farmland soils.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photos, and cultural resources databases,
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that Bridge No. 120 is the
only structure over fifty years of age. Bridge No. 120 has been determined to be eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. Since the bridge will be demolished as a
result of the project, the SHPO has concurred that there is an "adverse effect." The
bridge will therefore be recorded as described in Section II (Summary of Project
Commitments) of this document as well as in the Memorandum of Agreement (see
attachments).
Since this project necesitates the use of a historic bridge and meets the criteria set
forth in the Federal Register (July 5, 1983), a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
satisifies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the historic bridge structure, have
been fully evaluated: (1) do nothing; (2) build a new structure at a different location
without affecting the historic integrity of the structure, as determined by procedures
implementing the National Historic Preservation Act; and (3) rehabilitate the historic
bridge without affecting the historic integrity of the structure, as determined by
procedures implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. These alternatives were
not found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the historic bridge have been
incorporated into the project. Measures to minimize harm include recording the bridge as
described in the attached Memorandum of Agreement.
There are no other structures in the area over 50 years of age. This concludes
compliance with Section 106 and Section 4(f) requirements.
An archaeological survey was not required.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils
The soils of the study vicinity are all of the Evard-Edneyville-Ashe Association.
This association develops on sloping to very steep terrain that is well drained or
somewhat excessively well drained on ridge tops and side slopes. The subsoils are
loamy. Most of the project area consists of the Ashe stony sandy loam series, occurring
on 45-70% slopes on rough sides of mountains. The ashe soil is excessively drained and
rapidly permeable. The southwestern edge of the project area consists of Edneyville fine
sandy loam, occurring on 25-45% slopes. This well drained, moderately permeable soil
occurs on sides of mountains.
There are no hydric soils that occur in the project area. Neither of the two soil
series that occur in the project area contain hydric soil inclusions.
Water Resources
The project will impact waters of the Green River and small tributary streams of
the Green River. The drainage from the project area flows directly into the river, which
will receive all the runoff from the roadway and construction activity. The Green River is
a major tributary of the Broad River within the Broad River Basin. The basin as a whole
is characterized by highly erodible soils and extensive agricultural use.
Characteristics of Water Resources
Within this section of the Green River, there is very little water as the majority of
the water has been diverted into a large wooden penstock (see Figure 5) for a distance of
1.9 kilometers (1.2 miles) between the dam of Lake Summit and the hydroelectric plant.
Below the power plant the river resumes it normal hydrology.
Fish (1968) classifies the Green River in this section in his brown trout category.
These streams are generally large with slow flow and deep pools at lower elevations; the
waters are normally clear, and the summer temperatures are 42 degrees Celsius (75
degrees Fahrenheit). Fish reports the average width of the Green River in the project
vicinity to be 24 meters (80 feet), with stream discharges fluctuating widely due to power
generation from Lake Summit.
In the project area during the time of the site visit, there was very little to no flow
in the river itself. The channel varied from 15-30 meters (50-100 feet) in width, with
water present in pools only. Waters were clear. Downstream of the project area, below
points where small side-slope streams discharge into the river, some flow was evident.
The river bottom is virtually all rock, with a few sand, boulder, and rubble piles present.
Some of the rock was moss-covered. Extensive scouring and washing are evident. Trash
and debris have accumulated in spots.
Two small side-slope streams enter the river in the project area. The first small
stream lies on the north side parallel to the bridge . It begins at the top of the slopes at
US 176 and cascades through a narrow steep-sided ravine, mostly over bedrock, until it
reaches the fill area that supports the flume. It then continues under the fill through a
large culvert pipe, emptying at the base of a large rip-rap area on the south side of the fill.
From that point, the stream has had a strong flow over a rock bottom; it is about 1-2
meters (3-6 feet) wide and 7-15 centimeters (3-6 inches) deep, except for small pools.
The second small stream begins as a wet seep in a broad ravine on the south side
below US 176. There are a few small cascades over solid rock. Where this stream enters
the river channel, a large delta of sandy sediment has developed. There is a bottom slope
seepage area adjacent to this playa on the east side.
A small emergent marsh wetland, approximately 0.03 hectares (0.07 acres) in
size, occurs on the top of the fill near the flume. This is probably an accidentally-
developed wetland maintained by leakage from the flume above it. The first stream flows
under this wetland through a culvert under the fill.
Best Usage Classification
The Green River and most of its tributaries in the project region, including source
streams, are classified "C TR." Exceptions are the upper four-fifths of Lake Summit (B
TR) and a few tributaries (B, B TR, C, C TR, HQW), none of which are within a 1.6
kilometers (1.0 miles) of the project area (NCDEHNR 1993). All unclassified tributaries
carry the same classification as the streams to which they are tributary.
Class "B" waters are freshwaters protected for primary recreation which includes
swimming on a frequent or organized basis. Class "C" streams are "freshwaters
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and
survival, and wildlife" (NCDEHNR 1994). Class "C" is the lowest freshwater
classification; all freshwaters receive this classification at a minimum. Trout waters
(TR) are "freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked
trout."
There are no High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
"WS-I," or "WS-II" water supply watersheds located within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of
the proposed project.
7
Water Quality
There is no Benthic Macroinvetebrate (BMAN) samplings available for this sub-
basin of the Broad River. In this sub-basin, there are no dischargers with permitted
design flows greater than or equal to 0.5 million gallons per day (NCDEHNR 1989).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Pollution discharges are possible with construction of roads, culverts, and bridges.
Construction impacts can degrade waters, with pollutants and sediment loads affecting
water quality from a biological and chemical standpoint. Because of the generally acute
sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs deriving from construction,
appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage and control runoff. Therefore, Best
Management Practices will be employed consistently.
Table 2 summarizes potential surface water resource impacts. The Green River at
the site of the bridge crossing averages 24 meters (80 feet) in width, and the total area
under the R/W is approximately 0.6 hectares (0.14 acres). Small Stream No. 1 (see
Figure 2) lies within an area likely to be altered or modified by the project. Small Stream
No. 2 (see Figure 2) is outside the area to be modified by the project but will likely
receive direct discharge from the project.
Potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands include effects on a small area of
emergent marsh and on seepage communities. Any seeps affected by construction will
probably be destroyed in their present form. There could be potential indirect impacts to
downstream offsite wetlands (See Jurisdictional Issues).
Green River Crossing
Small Stream No. 1
natural portion
culverted portion
Small Stream No. 2
Emergent Wetland
Seeps
0.06 hectares (0.14 acres)
114 meters (375 feet)
66 meters (215 feet)
99 meters (325 feet)
0.03 hectares (0.07 acres)
< 0.01 hectares (< 0.01 acres)
Construction of this project will not modify the flow of the Green River; the flow
of the river at this site has already been altered by division through a flume, and the
channel carries very little water except during periods of heavy flow. The channel and
the flume can be crossed effectively, without further modification, with an appropriately
designed and placed bridge. It may be possible to avoid any relocation of Small Stream
No. 1 through careful design of the project. There should be no small stream crossings,
therefore, stream culverts should not be necessary. Erosion control measures will be
necessary to protect all streams, and all instream activities should be scheduled during
low flow periods.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities are typical of the Blue Ridge
Ecoregion. No unusual or especially significant elements were located during the field
investigation, as noted below, but positive identifications could not be made for all taxa.
Only common names are used in the discussion below after the scientific name is first
introduced.
Plant Communities
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the proposed project Right of Way. Most of the natural upland
vegetation of the project area would be classified as dry-mesic Montane Oak--Hickory
Forest, but there is a tendency to mesic Acidic Cove Forest downslope and dry Chesnut
Oak Forest upslope and on ridge tops (based on system of Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Riverine and paulstrine communities include Rocky Bar and Shore Community in the
floodplain and small areas of High or Low Elevation Seep Community (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). Most of the land surface in the project area is covered in second-growth
phases of the natural forest vegetation. For purposes of discussion and quantification, the
following communities and land types are recognized in the R/W: upland forest, power
line community, thicket, riverine system, seepages, emergent marsh, maintained roadside,
sericea opening, rip-rap slope, and roadway. Some sites in the project area were littered
and trashy, particularly around the south end of the bridge in spots along the river.
Natural Communities
Upland Forest. Forest vegetation dominates the project area on the steep slopes
and ridges of the Green River gorge. Most of the forest is a dry-mesic type, but there are
mesic ravines and slopes in the lower part of the gorge and more xeric conditions on a
few small cliff areas, on south-facing slopes, and on some crests and upper ridge tops.
Most of this mixed-age community is older second-growth with larger canopy trees in the
38-51 centimeter (15-20 inches) DBH range. Trees are generally smaller in stature in the
less abundant drier forests. Some old stumps are still evident.
White oak appears to be the most common and important tree through most of this
forest. Examples of other trees present includes scarlet oak, northern red oak, tulip tree,
and mocerknut hickory. Common shrubs are present such as sweetshrub, hydrangea, and
witch-hazel. Common vines might include climbing bittersweet, and Japanese
honeysuckle.
Thicket Community. This community exists in several phases with various
combinations of herb, vine and shrub dominance. It is developed on steep banks and
rubble below the existing road and bridge, and at forest edges next to the maintained open
areas under the flume. Hardwood saplings such as tulip tree and sweet birch commonly
occur. Blackberries are common, but other shrubs such as smooth sumac, and hydrangea
occur. Vines such as Japanese honeysuckle are present.
Riverine Community. Vegetated areas exist along the banks of the stream
channel, on rocky bars and shores, and sandy flats. As noted previously, however, there
is very little water present in the stream channel. Carolina rhododendron, yellowroot,
hydrangea, and flowering raspberry are common shrubs along the banks at the edge of the
forest. Most other plants are in soil and sand pockets among the rocks in the channel.
9
Seepage Community. There are various types of seeps occurring in distinctly
different kinds of sites. One type is on lower slopes adjacent to the south side of the river
channel essentially under the shade of the adjacent forest. This type is characterized by
wet colluvial soil and moss-covered rock. Beds of clearweed occur and yellow-root is
common. The latter type of seep community occurs in the project area but not in the
R/W. Another type of seepage community occurs in one location where a stream finds its
way from the culvert under the flume fill to the river through rip-rap, rubble and what
remains of the original small stream channel. The stream is spread over a broad wet zone
with soil pockets among the rocks. The characteristic vegetation is a thicket consisting of
those plants with wet affinities as described above for the thicket community.
Emergent Marsh Community. A marshy area has developed on top of the flat
fill surface that supports the flume. The water source appears to be leakage from the
overhead flume. Apparently, the fill soil is impermeable enough to retain standing water
that leaks onto the fill surface in that location. A circular depression about 0.02 hectares
(0.05 acres) in size holds open water about 30 centimeters (12 inches) deep. The
dominant species is cattail. Other wetland species present are swamp aster, rushes,
sedges bulrush, barnyard grass, smartweed, black willow, and gray willow. Other taxa
present are goldenrods, bonesets and Joe-pye weed, Japanese grass, and lovegrass. Other
spots do not have as much standing water, but they contain many of the same species.
Maintained and Developed Land Types
Maintained Roadside. This vegetation type consists of regularly mowed
shoulder that averages about 1.5 meters (5 feet) in width where it occurs in the R/W and
periodically bush-hogged banks. Examples of common plants include Japanese
honeysuckle, three-seeded mercury, and bushclovers.
Power Line Community. This vegetation type occurs under a power line that
crosses the R/W on the south side of the project. Hardwood saplings such as tulip tree,
black locust, sassafras, and scarlet oak are present. Shrubs such as sumac and blackberry
are dominant. Herbs such as goldenrods and ragweed are common.
Sericea Openings. Wide sections of the flat area under the flume are covered
almost exclusively by sericea lespedeza. Exceptions are wet spots where plant typical of
the emergent marsh are found.
Terrestrial Fauna
Evidence of typical fauna was sought through habitat evaluation, casual sightings,
and observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and other indirect evidence. Studies of
range distributions are also important in estimating the expected fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence available and
the human population density and development, are given below.
There is moderate diversity of habitat types in the project area. The primary
habitat type consists of upland forest, but several small areas of other kinds of
communities contribute to habitat diversity of the area. Thickets and low successional
communities and ecotonal areas (some wet) mostly occur as inclusions associated with
the fill supporting the flume. The riverine system inclusions associated with the fill
supporting the flume. The riverine system of the Green River bisects the area and
contributes additional habitat diversity. The affected habitat is contiguous to large
forested tracts.
10
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into five general groups.
Four are mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth is considered somewhat
ubiquitous. The specific habitat groups are as follows: more open areas, consisting of
sericea openings, rip-rap areas, and maintained roadside areas; intermediate habitats,
consisting of thickets and power line; forest; and aquatic or wet habitats in streams,
marshes and seeps.
A variety of amphibians such as American toad, eastern newt, and the slimy
salamander are expected to be present. Reptiles such as the five-lined skink, rat snake,
timber rattlesnake, and other snakes are common here.
The avifauna of open areas are expected to be few in number but might include
examples such as field sparrow, robin, and grasshopper sparrow. In intermediate areas, the
gray catbird, goldfinch, and white-throated sparrow are likely to be present. Forest species
would include examples such as woodthrush, wood warblers, and gray gnatcatcher.
Species ranging through many habitats include red-tailed hawk, and screech owl.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include examples such as
southeastern shrew, least shrew, and long-tailed weasel. Examples of those ranging into
forests as well as open and intermediate habitats are northern short-tailed shrew, eastern
mole, and striped skunk.
Aquatic Community
No fish were observed during the study. As previously noted, the Green River in
the project area is essentially a dry channel with only occasional isolated pools fed by
subterranean flow and precipitation. Elsewhere, in the vicinity, there is some surface
flow. A normal flow regime does not begin until well downstream of the project area.
Fish that might occur in the isolated pools and possibly in the larger portions of the two
streams are rosyside dace, creek chub, mottled sculpin, and darters. The fish fauna of the
river, before diversion of the water, likely also included brown trout, white sucker,
redbreast sunfish, and shriners.
The only aquatic amphibian observed was the mountain dusky salamander, but
the streams could support two-lined salamander, three lined salamander, green from, and
pickerel frog. Northern cricket frog might be expected in marshy areas.
Good turtle habitat is not present, but the snapping turtle and the painted turtle
may be present. Northern water snake and queen snake are the most likely water snakes
of the area.
Crayfish were noted in an isolated pool in the river channel. No aquatic insects
were observed.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Terrestrial Systems. Projected direct impacts due to project construction are
given in Table 3. Calculations are best approximations given the design specifications
available and the precision possible with this study. Area measurements were calculated
on an aerial photograph which portrayed proposed right of way. Approximately 1.05
hectares (2.60 acres) are in the potential impact zone. The forest community will be most
heavily impacted with 0.64 hectares (1.59 acres) in the right of way. All the other
communities and land types together equal less than one-half of the area in the right of
way. Area estimates for the seepage communities were not calculated because of their
>.i l
small size. It appears likely that significant portions or all of some of these communities
will not be directly impacted because they will be under the bridge span and little actual
construction on the land surface will be necessary. Some of the communities will re-
establish themselves following construction.
Indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not change
significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not increase because
there will be no additional roadway to be traversed by animals when the project is
completed.
Table 3. Area estimates of community and land types impacted under right of way
hectares (acres)
Upland forest 0.64 (1.59)
Powerline 0.06 (0.14)
Thicket 0.06 (0.14)
Riverine 0.06 (0.14)
Seepage Included in other communities
Emergent marsh 0.03 (0.07)
Maintained roadside 0.02 (0.06)
Sericia openings 0.10 (0.24)
Rip-rap slope 0.03 (0.08)
Roadway 0.05 (0.12)
TOTAL 1.05 (2.60)
Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the right of way.
Such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and injury, placing of fill
dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging substance, and skinning of trees by
machinery.
There will be an impact due to fragmentation of the forested habitat. Because the
new bridge will be replaced approximately 47 meters (150 feet) north of the existing
bridge, a small area of isolated forest will be created between the old right of way and the
new bridge. This isolated forest parcel will be exposed to increased light levels and
invasion of weedy species, and it's integrity will change substantially. However, impacts
to larger species and to those smaller species that require large tracts of unbroken forested
land (such as many neotropical migrant birds) will be minimal because of the small size
of this tract compared to the abundant forested habitat available in the vicinity.
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of
jurisdictional wetlands was made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 9b) based on best judgment
of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
12
Jurisdictional waters present in the project right of way, to which construction will
be limited, consist of surface waters in the riverine system, small seepage areas, and a
small area of emergent marshlands. None of the forests meet the criteria for jurisdictional
wetlands. Some jurisdictional wetlands may be present downstream of the bridge site
and potentially will receive inputs from road construction.
Table 4 Apparent and potential jurisdictional wetland takings.
Emergent marsh 0.03 hectares (0.07 acres)
Seepages < 0.01 hectares (< 0.01 acres)
The emergent marsh is clearly a man-induced wetland. The area now functions as
a wetland, with good hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, but hydric soils
have not yet developed. This area would be considered PEMIK (Palustrine, Emergent,
Persistent, Artificially Flooded) (National Wetlands Inventory [NWI] classification based
on Cowardin et al. 1979). The seepages occur as very small inclusions in various
situations: forest edges of lower slopes, associated with small streams, and on road banks.
The best NWI classification available for seeps may be PEMIB (Saturated).
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 933 U.S. C.
1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. Nationwide Permits
[33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14 and 26)] authorize actions that have no significant environmental
effect, such as when dealing with road crossings of wetlands or waters of small size [<
0.13 hectares (< 0.33 acres)], short bridge crossings [< 61 meters ( < 200 feet)], or
because of their location above stream headwaters (1.5 cubic meters per second = 5 cubic
feet per second) or in isolated wetlands or waters. Individual or General Permits are
required for situations were the criteria for Nationwide Permits are not met.
This project cannot be authorized under the Nationwide Permits listed above
because the bridge crossing exceeds 61 meters (200 feet) in length and the Green River,
though artificially dry, technically is not above the headwaters. The applicable permit
may be General Regional Permit No. 31, which applies to bridges when the general limits
of the Nationwide Permits are exceeded..
Because the project area lies in a trout county, discretionary authority by the COE
requires that the NCDOT must seek concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to the COE authorizing the project under one or
more nationwide permits (pursuant to 33 CFR 330.8). As discussed earlier in this
report, there are no trout waters in the direct impact zone of the project, however, brown
trout waters exist approximately 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) downstream. General
Regional Permit No. 31 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (31)] should authorize the project following
review and concurrence by the NCWRC.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity
in surface waters where a federal permit is required. This certification is required prior to
issuance of the 404 permit.
13
Mitigation
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and
palustrine wetlands. There are no other feasible alternatives for crossing the Green River
at this point. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report. However,
compensatory mitigation is generally not required where Nationwide or General Permits
are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the COE. If an Individual Permit should be required for the Green
River crossing, all sites (impact areas of surface and wetland waters ) may have to be
accumulated for mitigation purposes. Final discretionary authority in these matters rest
with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and
roadway in order to minimize impact. Appropriate erosion control devices will have to
be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges into streams and wetlands, and
soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible during and after
construction of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas where the soil
will be disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in
wetlands. When the old bridge is removed, similar measures must be followed to protect
the waters from pollution discharges.
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of April 1, 1996, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service reports five species with one of these classifications for Henderson
County.
The small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides, Threatened) is a small herb in
the orchindacae. It typically occurs in upland forests throughout the state, but mostly in
the mountains, especially with white pine. Marginal habitat of this type does occur in the
project area. Plant by plant surveys were conducted on June 13, 1996 in the project's
area of impact. No plants were observed.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Mountain sweet pitcher-plants (Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii, Endangered) are
insectivorous herbs in the Sarraceniacae. The mountain sweet pitcher-plant occurs in
North Carolina in mountain bogs of only three southern mountain counties. Populations
have been documented in Henderson County within the last 10 years. Bog habitat does
not occur in the project area. No pitcher-plants were found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The bunched arrowhead (Saquittaria fasciculata, Endangered) is a small herb in
the Alismataceae. It occurs in mountain bogs and swamp forests. Extant populations
have been documented in Henderson County within the last 10 years. The emergent
marsh in the project area could provide marginally suitable habitat for this species.
However, no arrowheads of any kind were found during a visual search of the area.
Flowering and fruiting occur from May through July, and a search at the time of site
investigation would not likely have produced any plants even if they were present. Plant
14
by plant surveys were conducted on June 13, 1996 in the project's area of impact. No
plants were observed.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The white irisette (Sisyrichium dichotomum, Endangered) is a small spring-
flowered herb in the Iridacae. Fruiting for most taxa in the family extends into summer.
In North Carolina, it occurs in this woods in the Blue Ridge escarpment region in the
southern mountain counties, especially over amphibolite. Extant populations have been
found in Henderson County within the last ten years. The project area is in the
escarpment region, and there are amphibolite formations within the project vicinity.
However, geological maps indicate no amphibolite in the project area. Thin woods of the
type required for this species do not occur in the project area. The area was visually
searched, and no plants were found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The swamp pink (Helonias bulatta, Threatened) is a small spring-flowering herb
in the Liliaceae. In North Carolina, it occurs in bogs in three southern mountain counties,
and extant populations are known from Henderson County within the last 10 years. bog
habitat does not occur in the project area. No plants were found during visual search of
the area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
15
IX. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f)
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project BRSTP-176(1)
State Project 8.1951201
T. I. P. No. B-2574
Description: Replace Bridge No. 120 on US 176 over Green River in Henderson County
with a new bridge on new alignment approximately 15 meters (50 feet) to
the north of the existing structure.
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or
rehabilitated with Federal funds? X
2. Does the project require the use of
a historic bridge structure which is a
on or eligible for listing on the x
National Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic
Landmark? F] X
4. Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation a
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council X
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND F_U_ND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE
AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
Do nothing x F-1
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered F-1 X
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety
hazards? X F
16
Yes No
2. Build a new structure at a different
location without affecting the historic x
integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or (ii) Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and/o (iv) The existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without
affecting the historic integrity of the x
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii) The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria
17
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning X
to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety, and load
requirements.
b. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
c. For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve the bridge.
d. For bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
NCDOT will record Bridge No. 120 as described in the attached Memorandum of
Agreement prior to demolition of the bridge.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval.
Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation. Not Applicable
18
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer See Attachment
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation See Attachment
c. Local/State/Federal Agencies See Attachment
d. US Coast Guard N/A
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
MMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
July 5, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
6"-26-96 ?'? /-?` a2l
Date / Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
713196 .G
Divis' Administrator, FHWA
Date
19
FIGURES

S7
i
I
1
e .. + g
9 I
y
OA O = i5, .?M.& 40 ?.
,S.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
HENDERSON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 120
ON US 176 OVER GREEN RIVER
B - 2574
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
i i 1 Fig 1
0 miles 1 miles 2
VIEW OF SOUTH FACE OF BRIDGE
FIGURE 3
VIEW OF NORTH FACE OF BRIDGE
EAST APPROACH FACING WEST
WEST APPROACH FACING EAST
FIGURE 4

on, _
N
_ Y

y.

-l

VIEW OF WOODEN PENSTOCK UNDER EAST END OF BRIDGE
_A

x

CLOSEUP VIEW OF WOODEN PENSTOCK
FIGURE 5

100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
INSET B
'.o
i ?
ZONE C
c,
ua?d e:
o?
:ONE A. sOUTWN
PROJECT SITE
ZONE C
W
e
c,
?I
U
Butler
Mtn
v
•o
Hetherly
Height
?. Lak
Hos
Ao?
V ?
"
?`
Ir

ATTACHMENTS
?7} oM STATF o
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 24, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge No. 120 on US 176 over Green River,
Henderson County, Federal Aid BRSTP-176(1),
State 8.1951201, TIP B-2574, ER 95-8157
Dear Mr. Graf:
/`? ?...
*WNI
Q-AN 2 7.1995
?r
)ur DIVISION r,,--
C? HIGHV AY' .
Division o
William S. ., trecti
Thank you for your letter of January 5, 1995, concerning the above project. We
have reviewed the vicinity map and photos of Bridge #120 and would like to
comment.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that Bridge #120 is eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion C for design and construction.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Since ly,
v Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L'jF. Vick
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Z?9
TIP #- $ -Sr,-14 Federal Aid # 13iuTP - 176 County 1-i e?1yF.?sorJ
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
V-F51r"&el VeIvc,Fl rZo. 12.10 or-) LAC, Yy6 ovm G-v-r +i {Ztver
On ,__?uLy representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the -subject project-and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's area of potential
effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the project's area
of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
? there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
S icrned:
r
w , or the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency

(over)
i. J [
TIP # V- 2574 Federal Aid # WTP - 1-7&0 County HrWve9,S-ti1
-
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National
Register-listed MR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE)
and describe effect.
?tZlDfrF? Ne- 120 CDEI - AcDV?ifi ?FFErir
i ?r'id?? will lov etcwcol?'y?tcd.•
. i
Initialed: NCDOT FHwA_ SHPO
t

APPENDIX A
Historic Structure Recordation Plan
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 120
Henderson County, North Carolina
Historical Background
A brief historical and physical narrative/description of Bridge No. 120
Photographic Documentation
Photographic views of Bridge No. 120 including:
Overall views (elevations and oblique views)
Overall views of the bridge in its setting
Details of construction or design
Format:
Representative color transparencies
4 x 5 inch large format black and white negatives (all views)
4 x 5 inch black and white prints (all views)
All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs and negatives to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History standards
Graphic Documentation
Reproduction of the construction blueprints from microfilm
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all photographic and graphic documentation and the historical
background information will be deposited with the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History/State Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent
part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.6(a)
REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 120
ON US 176 OVER GREEN RIVER
HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NO. B-2574, STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1951201
FEDERAL AID NO. BRSTP-176(1)
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
replacement of Bridge No. 120 over Green River in Henderson County, North Carolina, a
property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will have an
effect upon the structure, and has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) participated in
the consultation and has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take in to
account the effect of the undertaking on Bridge No. 120.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
1. Prior to the demolition of Henderson County Bridge No. 120, NCDOT shall
record the bridge in accordance with the attached Historic Structures Recordation
Plan (Appendix A). The recordation plan shall be carried out and copies of the
record shall be sent to the North Carolina SHPO prior to start of construction.

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO
and implementation of its terms evidences that FHWA has afforded the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the replacement of Henderson
County Bridge No. 120 on US 176 over Green River and its effect on historic properties,
and that FHWA has taken in to account the effects of the undertaking on historic
properties.

AY ADMINISTRATION
DATE
cyuaw-Q:L? iLSJJ3?
NORTH CAbdiq.N TORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER DATE
-,49 Z"t ;2-
NORT CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ATE
Concurring Party
DATE
ACCEPTED f6il
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
r 4
GE'1?
1Jv a lovr
" FEB 17 1995
kD1V1S1C.-q,--
H..
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
FROM: David Yow, District 9 Habitat Biologist
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 15, 1995
SUBJECT: Request for scoping comments, Bridge No. 120 on US
176 over the Green River, Henderson County, North
Carolina, TIP No. B-2574.
This memorandum responds to your request for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed
project, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves replacement of an obsolete
roadway bridge. We anticipate that a spanning structure
will be required for the site, given the size of the
existing bridge. The Green River is largely dewatered at
the project site due to operations of a hydroelectric plant
immediately upstream, and fisheries resources are limited in
the stream segment involved. Instream construction
activities should be coordinated with operations at the
hydro plant to allow timing of work during low water
periods.
Environmental documentation for this project should
include description of any wetlands on the project site and
surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be
affected by construction.
I C n
B-2574 Memo Page 2 February 15, 1995
Because Henderson County is a "trout water county", the
NCWRC anticipates review of the environmental document for
this project when a 404 permit application is submitted to
the Corps of Engineers. Our recommendations will likely
involve avoiding late winter and spring spawning periods
with any instream construction and implementing additional
precautions against sedimentation impacts to downstream
waters.
It is the policy of the NCWRC that impacts to wetlands
be avoided. If wetland areas are identified during project
planning, alternatives to avoid or minimize impacts on these
areas should be examined during project design.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If I can further
assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
John Williams, Project Planning Engineer